Is philosophy an art?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Is philosophy an art? » Is philosophy an art?

Is philosophy an art?
The philosophy of art? What about the art of philosophy?

Page: 1 2

Is philosophy an art?

Logico
Ceci n'est pas un Logico

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 09/16/09 - 10:39 AM: Subject: Is philosophy an art?	#1
Of all the topics upon which philosophers disagree, the difference in what they have to say about what they do, philosophy itself, seems to interest me. I have, after all, heard opinions from professional philosophers (as well as 'unprofessional') ranging from philosophy being a rigorous science, to a creative art, a dialectical battle between language games, and even a useless intellectual curiosity. Sometimes it seems to me that philosophy can be an art. That coming up with ideas, systems, derivations even, and linking concepts requires a sort of creative process, and sometimes requires even aesthetic inspiration. Other times it seems dry and rigorous, methodically deriving conclusions from a set of predetermined parameters. Perhaps all of these proposals on what philosophy is don't have to be mutually exclusive. Perhaps they can fall under the same category. Many scientists, for example, think of what they do as an art. To me it seems less accurate to say that philosophy falls under science than science falls under philosophy. Science, after all, was once referred to as "natural philosophy". Still, while some consider science to be an art, it is largely undisputed that many forms of art are not science. What exactly is this difference between art and science, and where does philosophy fit in? I am interested in reading your opinions. Is philosophy an art? Edited by Logico on 09/16/09 - 10:45 AM

magnusmay
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/11/09 - 04:04 AM:	#2
My gut feeling on this is that philosophy can be an art. There are so many different branches of philosophy, I tend to eschew the scientific/logic side of things (probably a character flaw). If you read extensively you will find many beautiful writings out there, these to me are art - not just the writing itself which is certainly lovely, but the ideas and structures too can be stunning. Think of Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Deleuze for starters. I have to say that I often find philosophy a truly aesthetic experience.

Tired
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 12, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 31

Posted 10/12/09 - 01:18 AM:	#3
Words can convey beauty. When something conveys an emotion or meaning to one, then it becomes art. Of course art is in the eye of the beholder, but when something becomes widely accepted at a certain standard, then it becomes great art.

Warshed
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 20, 2008

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 216

Posted 10/12/09 - 07:54 AM:	#4
Yes.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 199

Posted 10/12/09 - 08:15 AM:	#5
I would disagree. While it is true that both art and science and philosophy involve production (of works of art for the first, theories for the second two), and so contain an element of creativity and whatnot, the reasons for the production are different in the two. A work of art exists to please, or to express the personality of the artist, but a scientific or philosophical theory exists to model our experience, and to enable us to interact with our environment successfully. And as for whether philosophy is a branch of science or the other way around, I would say it is a dispute about nomenclature (meaning it's pointless).

Tired
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 12, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 31

Posted 10/12/09 - 11:50 AM:	#6
To Mega Therion wrote: I would disagree. While it is true that both art and science and philosophy involve production (of works of art for the first, theories for the second two), and so contain an element of creativity and whatnot, the reasons for the production are different in the two. A work of art exists to please, or to express the personality of the artist, but a scientific or philosophical theory exists to model our experience, and to enable us to interact with our environment successfully. And as for whether philosophy is a branch of science or the other way around, I would say it is a dispute about nomenclature (meaning it's pointless). Philosophy is not a science, it is discovering wisdom. Therefore as a written word, beauty can be found. Science is definite, has rules, hypothesis, methods and conclusions. Philosophers only have premises and conclusions.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 199

Posted 10/12/09 - 11:56 AM:	#7
First of all, I never said beauty couldn't be found in philosophy, or science for that matter, but that it is irrelevant to what both try to accomplish. And as for philosophy being 'discovering wisdom' and 'having only premises and conclusions' (I have no idea how you reconcile those two statements), I would say that the statement is not applicable at the very least to any serious modern philosopher, in either tradition (though finding a serious continental philosopher is something of a difficulty).

Tired
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 12, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 31

Posted 10/12/09 - 12:32 PM:	#8
To Mega Therion wrote: And as for philosophy being 'discovering wisdom' and 'having only premises and conclusions' (I have no idea how you reconcile those two statements), I would say that the statement is not applicable at the very least to any serious modern philosopher, in either tradition (though finding a serious continental philosopher is something of a difficulty). You have ideas and you need to break it down into premises and conclusions so you can be coherent and people can understand what you are saying. The need of wisdom is the intellectuals dragon. It is never attained, but you can always get one step closer. I would say that the statement is not applicable at the very least to any serious modern philosopher, in either tradition (though finding a serious continental philosopher is something of a difficulty). So you are saying that because my statement about beauty somehow goes against the grain, I am invalidated as a Philosopher? Beauty is what makes the world special. If you cannot find beauty in anything, then why continue doing it? Beauty brings joy and if you don't have joy, you don't have passion. If you don't have passion then you do not have a need to do it and if you do not have a need to do it, then this will translate to your work and others will see it. Art is subjective, it cannot be right or wrong like science. Philosophy in its deductive form can be, but as a literary form, cannot you see the beauty in its journey to the conclusion. Sometimes the journey is more rewarding than the destination and I believe that to be the case with Philosophy and I find the art inherent to how I express this in the written word.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 199

Posted 10/12/09 - 12:44 PM:	#9
One certainly doesn't need to break down an argument into a series of premises and conclusions in order to be clear; scientific texts rarely if ever do so and I would consider them the exemplars of clarity (well, most of them anyway). The second part of my post referred to your view of philosophy as deductive, which is quite frankly an antiquated and indefensible notion. Or could you name even one single concept or idea established by deduction? Again, the point is not that philosophy can't be beautiful (it can), but that it is an essentially different form of production than art.

Tired
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 12, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 31

Posted 10/12/09 - 01:41 PM:	#10
To Mega Therion wrote: The second part of my post referred to your view of philosophy as deductive, which is quite frankly an antiquated and indefensible notion. Or could you name even one single concept or idea established by deduction? Of course not all philosophy is deductive, most of it is inductive and extrapolates to abduction. It you can break an argument to abduction, then you have proven your point without a shadow of a doubt. Edited by Tired on 10/12/09 - 03:24 PM. Reason: "]" Bracket missing.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.